Understanding Privacy 164
privacyprof writes "Slashdot readers familiar with Professor Daniel J. Solove's essay, 'I've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy,' might be interested in his new book, Understanding Privacy, which develops many of the ideas in that essay. As rapidly changing technology makes information increasingly available, there has been a great struggle to define privacy, with many conceding that the task is virtually impossible. The book argues there are multiple forms of privacy, related to one another by 'family resemblances.' It explains the framework for understanding privacy which was briefly discussed in the 'Nothing to Hide' essay. The book covers the framework in greater depth and explores how it applies to a wide array of privacy issues, such as data mining, surveillance, data security, and consumer privacy. Chapter 1 is available for free download."
Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think the idea that privacy is difficult to comprehend is overblown. Privacy is not at all difficult to define, understand, or to properly address in either the social or political sense.
Privacy is defined by the set of social boundaries dealing with information in any one society that we are expected not to cross. How well you respect privacy is essentially whether you elect to cross those boundaries against those expectations.
Here is my essay on privacy [wordpress.com]; see if reading it doesn't nail the issue for you in very short order.
There is literally no need to invoke "multiple kinds" or "family resemblances", to mistake the hardening of a boundary (increasing difficulty of access) or the softening of it (as in data becoming easier to get to) for the idea that there actually is one, or to imagine that digital data is somehow qualitatively different than a letter. That's just making a ridiculous mess out of things that weren't all that complicated to begin with.
Further, it isn't that there has been a "great struggle" to define privacy in a practical sense; any reasonably intelligent citizen knows perfectly well what it is, and they know when it has been violated, too. The problem is that the government (in the USA, at least) has found it to its great advantage to ignore privacy at every level it can; and that we are nearly powerless to do anything about it. That's what is causing all the fuss, and deservedly so.
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:1, Insightful)
"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't pin everything on the government. However, they are indeed the primary source of privacy problems in the USA right now. We have, historically speaking, had good legal backup for the concept of privacy as embodied in the 4th amendment. The government is doing a great deal to erode those protections on many fronts at once, and this is, I maintain, the key area we need to focus on this issue. While I am not happy if John Q Moron personally invades my email stash, I am a lot more concerned if the government decides that's OK in the face of its own constituting authority. I'll deal with John Q later.
The Problem is Not Misunderstanding of Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy = I decide who knows what about me.
This, to me, does away with the "I have nothing to hide" fallacy, because that attitude surrenders power. It's not about what they find, it's about who decides when and where they can look in the first place.
To put it another way, if you argue that the authorities can do whatever they like because you haven't done anything wrong, you surrender any right to make a case that they might be doing something wrong.
Re:"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:5, Insightful)
Being under surveillance is a stressful situation. Unfortunately I lost the link to the survey, but I think everyone can relate to it. Remember the time when you were at school and were asked something, maybe something trivial, yet everyone in class looked at you. Think of an interview in the street, maybe a camera team asking for your opinion. Think of a police car driving behind you on the road, even if they don't want anything from you, where you aren't even under any kind of surveillance but you feel like you are.
Being monitored creates stress. Now imagine putting people permanently under stress. I could see a few flipping before long.
Re:grr. (Score:4, Insightful)
Me. Unfortunately, I was not offered the choice.
Forcing security upon someone who does not ask for it is nothing but paternalism.
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a good working model. It doesn't account for someone who comes into your house and sprays graffiti on your walls, though.
Consider defining your equality this way:
Privacy = I decide who has access to me, those people I am responsible for, and those things that are mine.
Then go look at the fourth amendment. Carefully. Think about the role of persons, houses, papers, and effects as stated there, as well as how those things generalize into today's realities, and then take a moment to marvel and just how right those people got the issue.
Then take another to be absolutely horrified at how wrong today's government has gotten them.
Re:grr. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"I have nothing to hide..." (Score:4, Insightful)
With the changes in laws and the creation of more and more patronizing laws, can you be sure that what you do will not violate the law soon? Worse, is what you are doing today maybe illegal tomorrow, or seen as an indicator for illegal behaviour, and you'll be labeled a criminal because you happen to have similar habits to someone who actually commits a crime?
We have a lot of pseudoscientific "evidence" thrown at us, showing correlation where there is none, used to create laws and, worse, put labels on people who have nothing to do with it. The alleged correspondence between computer games and violence has been discussed a lot lately, can you be sure that you won't be seen as a possible loose cannon because you play certain games?
Oh, you don't play games? Well, maybe you enjoy watching swimsuit contests? Who says they won't create some correlation between people who enjoy watching model shows with people who rape women? Still not worried that your cable company wants to know what you watch, and that government wants, too?
Maybe you're a smoker? Well, are you sure it's still going to be legal tomorrow? And we all know how hard it is to stop smoking, it's almost sure you will try to get your tobacco somewhere, and most likely from that guy you can also get other stuff. Mind if we did a search of your home, just to make sure you don't?
You've been talking on your phone quite a lot lately. And you know, the people you called happened to live next to some guy we arrested yesterday for terrorism (or something else, pick any kind of random crime). Mabye you'd like to explain to us who you called abroad?
That convenience store you shopped at? That funny talking guy running it was arrested because we think he has contacts with some terrorists. Maybe you did more than just shop there, too?
You buy an aweful lot of trans fat grease junkfood, your health insurance decided to up your premium due to your risky behaviour.
Do I have to go on?
Re:"I have nothing to hide..." (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:4, Insightful)
As a good rule, a persons respect for boundaries says a lot about their inner sense of self and personal security. Normal, mentally healthy people don't need to be taught these boundaries, they are implicit social contracts. We respect other peoples privacy because we expect the same freedom. Freedom? Well, "The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom." (Justice William O. Douglas).
There are two causes for this to go wrong. One is exhibitionism, and the complementary feeling that others too share a desire to be understood, scrutinised, exposed. It is an exposure of the false self, a persona masque, these people who say "I have nothing to hide" would be mortified to think anyone would know the real self they haven't meticulously cultured and presented to the world. But this schizoidal thing is rare.
The other, much more common and easily provoked is self loathing. The lack of self respect and autonomy that makes an adult willing to accept pseudo-parental oversight is a cry for help. They're hoping that Nanny state and corporate Big Brother are really going to save them from themselves. They dispense with any real personal responsibility because they are made to feel the world is out of their control.
Decent societies are founded on the freedom of priviacy. Even commerce and matters of state cannot survive without it. Privacy, the desire to have it and the desire to bestow it is a mark of sanity. It demonstrates a lack of fear, mature boundaries, self assurance, trust and dignity. To give up on this freedom is no different than giving up on the right to vote, to raise a family, to practice religion or freedom of movement and association.
It beggars belief that something so fundamental and obvious is even debated.
Re:"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and more. Privacy lets you behave morally (as judged by your own moral code) in a world of people who would wrongly criticize you. For example, right now I need privacy in order to spank my children in a world that is presently running a perilous anti-spanking experiment.
As social creatures, disapproval and disenfranchisement cause us physical pain. Privacy shields our proper actions from that.
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a concept known as the "slippery slope" that basically mirrors the saying, "Give X and inch, and they'll take a mile." If we let "THEM" listen in on phone conversations so that "THEY" can prevent terrorism, it'll be a matter of time until we're asked to endure the wiretapping because there are 'harmful dissidents' in the country, trying to harm the nation. Actually, for a real-world tangible example where you can see the effects of allowing your government to invade your privacy, look at China. Yeah, you can call semi-Godwin's Law on me for citing Communists, but tell me that I'm wrong. They claim that the censorship, the firewall, and all that is to help keep the country safe and sane, but who really believes that?
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, if John Q owns some kind of corporation, chances are that you're in the wrong if you kick him out.
Re:grr. (Score:1, Insightful)
That would actually be a *good* thing. Nearly everything the US does in the name of "national defence" is actually to the benefit of US based multinational corporations.
Why Privacy: The First Reason (Score:4, Insightful)
There are other reasons I guess, but that's the most important one when relating the concept of personal privacy to institutions such as government agencies, corporations, etc. It has nothing to do with shame or morality, it's all about power and control.
Re:"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:0, Insightful)
Your private life shouldn't be judged by the ethical theory du jour, and while I agree with you that there are many dangerous trends in current culture , the anti-corporal punishment movement is not one of them.
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is one of convenience. The average citizen is uneducated as to the nuances of liberty and freedom. (Not, I should say, uneducated in general). Given then the ignorance of liberty and freedom, they are easily swayed into giving up their constitutional power under the guise of necessity. For it is much more inconvenient to object and much more convenient to acquiesce.
Take a look at every legislation that resulted in the encroachment, or out right infringement of the 4th amendment. Every single incident was precipitated by some perceived "danger" to society as a whole in which that specific piece of legislation was to address.
Ironically, this is nothing new. And again, the masses are ignorant. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Give the masses their bread, give them their entertainment, and they will become complacent. Make it too inconvenient for them to question and they will not until the very end.
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. Knowledge is not a synonym for physical or human-free (computer) non-storing access; yet access -- to knowledge certainly, but also to property, your person, your effects, your home -- directly addresses the issue at hand.
Personally -- and I seriously mean that, this is not about you -- I find that boiling things down to be concise is a task that, while eminently worthwhile, is fraught with the risk of error. One of the signals that I've gone too far is when I find myself trying to make what I said into an abstraction of an abstraction. That's why I would not adopt your formulation.
In this case, I find the fourth amendment instructive. Those were incredibly insightful people. When they said the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, that really covers the bases very well, without having to get all hand-wavy.
Re:"I have nothing to hide..." (Score:1, Insightful)
individual (as opposed to communal) human being.
The survivors of Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps, when asked following
their liberation about the greatest deprivation or torment they had endured, the almost
universal response identified the lack of privacy. Even living in filth, disease,
and hunger cannot compete with being denied a private existence.
Few of us have experienced, or will experience, a total lack of privacy. But be assured,
the loss of private moments, private property, and a private life can be devastating and
inimical in the extreme. It derives from the core of our human nature. Protect it above
all else.
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you missed the sarcasm tag there. WHOOSH.
The point is that most people on
There are a few people who use real names, and for that I commend them.
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Those old white dudes had it right (Score:3, Insightful)
The founding fathers certainly knew the dangers of such asymmetries. It is sad that their heirs care only about exploiting such asymmetries to satisfy some personal greed.
Re:"I have nothing to hide..." (Score:3, Insightful)
You won the argument, ok. He has something to hide. But now he thinks you're some professional tinfoil-hat wearing paranoiac who blows stuff way out of proportion. The government/corporations/whoever don't want to put a cam into his toilet.
He doesn't even understand the connection. You argue from a rather esotheric, on-principle point of view. Most people don't care about that, they see only what's currently happening, they don't see the abstract behind it. The government wants cams on the streets, they want a look at your email and webpage, they want to know who you call, corporations (and the feds, in turn, but who cares?) want to know where you shop and what you buy, and so on.
That's usually none of a normal person's concerns. They don't see the long term effects. They only know that the feds won't put a cam into their home, and that they can easily keep you from doing it. Case closed. Nothing to worry about. And if everything fails they'll bluff back and say that the government could put a cam down their potty anytime, but you don't.
Re:A short story about privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, here's what makes it difficult (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that can be used jujutsu style against us. Enter: groupthink. And there are those who figured out how to do that. It's not new, it's at least ten thousand years old, very probably even more.
Groupthink is a funny thing. Take for example a bunch of farmers, like in the infamous Goering quote, who each independently would rather work their farm than go risk death and crippling in a war where they have nothing to gain. Independently, each would rather _not_ go to war. Put them in a situation where each thinks "OMG, I'd lose face if the others think I'm a coward and unpatriotic" and watch them thump their chests and screaming pro-war slogans. Watch them cheer for the very things they despise secretly. Or conversely shaking a fist and yelling against the very things they desire.
And after a short while, cognitive dissonance kicks in, and they even lie to themselves that they really want those things they hate, and they really hate those things they want.
It's the emperor's new clothes story. Get a bunch of people who think everyone else sees those non-existent clothes, and that their standing would fall dramatically if they don't. Watch them all swear that they can see them clothes. In fact, watch cognitive dissonance kick in, and see them convince even themselves that they _do_ kinda see the clothes.
Where the Grimm Brothers got it wrong, is that that phenomenon is _very_ hard to unravel. In the story, all it takes is one kid shouting "the emperor is naked", for the whole charade to come apart. In reality, that wouldn't do jack squat.
In reality, for you to be brave, someone else must be a coward. To provide the comparison. For you to be smart, someone else must be stupid. For you to be a superior audiophile who hears the difference in downloaded MP3s with an audiophile Ethernet cable, someone else must be inferior enough to not hear it. Etc. The child shouting "the emperor is naked" just provides that other term of the comparison. It makes everyone else in the crowd pat their backs and congratulate each other that they're not like that simpleton kid who can't see the clothes.
It's a funny thing too, in that it's not even the emperor's guards that make it happen. They're at best a catalyst to get it started. Two hundred years later the emperor could be dead and his heirs guillotined long ago, the country could be a democracy, and the "clothes" could be in a museum showing the craftsmanship in the old days. Or maybe as proof of the excesses of nobility in the old days. And people would still come and squint and convince themselves that they _can_ see some fabulous clothes behind the glass. Just because everyone else does.
So what does this have to do with privacy? Well, that's why you have to explain to people exactly what privacy is and that it's not some shameful failing to need your personal space. Because there are plenty of those trying to make it sound like you're some horrible monster and your peers would surely shun you if you want privacy. The ball is already rolling towards turning it into a group-think situation, and there are interested parties pushing the ball in that direction too. You need more than just, well, "privacy is privacy, duh, and of course you need it" to defuse that.
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if only they'd put those little retaining screws on power cords like they do on the monitor cable... I've accidentally kicked the power cord out at work a couple times. The smart thing would be to rearrange things so it wasn't possible, but the demons in our contracted IT department would come down upon me.
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you seriously believe that drivers who are used to automatic transmission are involved in more accidents? I've never heard of any such statistic, and it seems rather implausible to me. The main difficulty in driving safely is to (a) understand the rules of traffic (b) interpret what you see fast enough to be able react in time and drive safely (c) maintain awareness.
Being able to handle a manual transmission is mainly an automatic motor-skill, something that doesn't require thought; and if you can learn to walk, ride a bike, or play tennis; you can learn operate a manual transmission. Driving safely is an entirely different skill-set, and a lot more complex than merely training your cerebellum to do a simple skill without thinking. Many people with severe brain damage who needs 24h supervision to handle daily life, can probably easily learn to operate a manual transmission, but I wouldn't let them loose in traffic.
The main problem with people not understanding computers is that they don't want to, and in an ideal world, they shouldn't have to. Many years ago you needed to be an auto-mechanic to drive. You don't need to anymore. Nor do you need to understand digital radio when using a cell-phone. Or scan-lines for watching "Big Brother" on TV. And there's no reason per se why people need to understand the difference between a CPU and a battery in order to shop at amazon.com.
Things will eventually get better, but it will probably take a long time until computers are as easy to use as they appear. Until then, accept that not everybody shares your interest in computers. And if they don't want to understand what a keylogger is, you are probably using far too technical language. Most people do not want criminals on the Internet to access their bank-accounts. Tell them what to look for, but not more than they want to know. Just like some drivers learn to watch for warning lights on their dashboard, even though they don't know the difference between "oil", "coil", or "blinker fluid". They simply don't want to learn more, and there's really nothing wrong with that. If you think about it, there's probably a lot of stuff you don't want to learn either. Do you even know what "deconstruction" means? Do you care? And no, being able to google it doesn't count...
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy isn't that difficult. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Privacy rights are not to protect you from the government you know, they're to protect you from the future government you don't."
Re:"I've Got Nothing To Hide" (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, If you can convince her. she's shy.
2. or read your bank statement?
I have two. Which one? And not the account details, just the transactions.
3. Can I have your exact height and weight?
5'7". 182lbs
4. and maybe get a glance at your mental health records?
Depression. 2006-07
5. Do you mind if I videotape your grandfather's funeral?
Yes. You can't do it unless you give me a copy.
6. Got any love letters left over from Junior High I can read?
I never got any. sorry
All of the above I am perfectly happy to share. But I think the point is that I am choosing to share it. I would certainly have a problem with people just taking the information without asking for it.
Privacy- the right to choose who knows what.
I have plenty to hide, just not those things and I'm willing to bet that you have an entirely different list of things you don't want to share